HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/04/19 Item 11
_ ''-''.'', ..' r
,..,...'.-',
"'-'<' """
April 19, 20 II Item l\
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~\f? CITY OF
· · K CHULA VISTA
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 579
(MONNIN G) ALLOWING LOCAL GOVERl'lMENTS TO
RECOVER ATTORNEYS' FEES AFTER SUCCESSFULLY
DEFENDING LOCAL MANUFACTURED HOME RENT
CONTROL ORDINANCES, AND RELATED
MANUFACTURED HOMEOWNER PROTECTIONS, AND
PROVIDING A SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS SUCH
LAWSUITS WITH NO PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS
CITY ATTORNEY'S PYFICE VIA COUNCIL MEMBER
STEVE CASTANEDA.4.C--
CITY ATTORNEY~
4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO I X I
Chula Vista Municipal Code section 9.50 provides for mobilehome space rent review by the
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission ("MHRRC"). The validity of Section 9.50 and the
decisions of the MHRRC are subject to writ review and other forms of litigation. The City
incurs costs in the defense thereof. State Assembly Bill 579 ("AB 579") would defray the
costs for such defense by providing that attorney fees may be collected by a public agency
(which include the City) should it prevail in litigation. AB 579 would also permit the a
public agency to file a special motion to strike against certain causes of actions challenging a
mobilehome rent control ordinance and its enforcement, thereby ending the litigation in an
expeditious manner and resulting in a cost savings. It is requested that the City adopt a
resolution to support the passage of AB 579.
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW
Support for AB 579, dealing with attorney's fees and motions to strike specified causes
of action, is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code S21000,
et. seq.) as set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines section l5060(c)(3).
RECOMMENDA nON
It is recommended that City Council approve the resolution to support AB 579.
11-1
April 19, 2011 Item~
Page 2 of2
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
Chula Vista Municipal Code section 9.50 provides for mobilehome space rent review by
the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission ("MHRRC"). In so doing, the ordinance
provides for rent control for mobilehome space rents. The validity of Section 9.50 and
the decisions by the MHRRC are subject to writ review and other types oflitigation. The
City incurs costs, including its attorney fees, defending the ordinance and decisions of the
MHRRC. Under current law, if a party challenging the ordinance or the decision of the
MHRRC is successful they may collect attorney's fees. However, if the City is
successful, it may not.
Councilmember Steve Castaneda informed the City Attorney's Office that the state
Legislature was considering providing attorney fees to public entities in mobilehome rent
review cases in AB 579. AB 579 is an assembly bill that seeks to provide the awarding
of attorney fees to public entities, like the City of Chula Vista, that successfully defend
challenges to their mobilehome rent review ordinances and decisions of its board or
commission tasked with administering such ordinance. AB 579 also permits a public
entity to file a special motion to strike certain causes of action involving a mobilehome
rent review ordinances as a way to dismiss the case. Such a special motion to strike is a
benefit to public entities because litigation can be resolved quickly, thus saving costs by
avoiding protracted and needless litigation.
AB 579 is scheduled for hearing before the State Assembly Judiciary Committee on May
2,2011.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
The proposed action is not site specific, and, as a result, no conflicts have been identified.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
There is no current fiscal impact by this action.
ONGOING FISCAL IMP ACT
If AB 579 passes the City would have the ability to recover attorney's fees in cases
involving mobilehome rent review decisions, thus permitting the City to recoup litigation
expenses.
ATTACHMENTS
AB 579.
11-2
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-2011-12 REGULAR SESSIOi'-l
ASSEMBLY BILL
No. 579
lntroduced by Assembly Member Monning
February 16, 20ll
An act to amend Sections 1021.5 and 1036 of, and to add Section
425.20 to, the Code of Civil Procedure, and to amend Section 800 of
the Government Code, relating to mobilehome parks.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 579, as introduced, Monning. Mobilehome parks: liability:
attorney's fees.
Existing law permits a court to award attorney's fees to a successful
party in an action that has resulted in the enforcement of an important
right affecting public interest, but does not allow an award of attorney's
fees in favor of public entities, except in limited circumstances. Existing
law requires the court to determine and award a successful plaintiff in
an inverse condemnation proceeding certain costs, disbursements,
expenses, and fees, as provided. Existing law permits a complainant to
collect specified attorney's fees in a civil action to appeal or review an
administrative proceeding where the proceeding was the result of
arbitrary or capricious action or conduct by the public entity or officer.
This bill would permit the award of attorney's fees and, in some cases,
other litigation expenses, to a local governmental entity in an action
brought by the owner of a mobilehome park to challenge the validity
or application of a local ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure
that regulates space rent or is intended to benefit or protect residents in
a mohilehome park, if the local governmental entity is determined to
be the prevailing party.
99
ATTACHMENT 1
11-3
AB 579
-2-
Existing law provides that a cause of action against a person arising
from the person's right of petition or free speech is subject to a special
motion to strike, unless the court determines there is a probability that
the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.
This bill would also subject certain causes of action against a local
government regarding mobilehome parks to a special motion to strike.
The motion would apply to a cause of action that challenges the validity
or application of a local ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure
that regulates space rent, as specified, or a cause of action that challenges
a local government's application or enforcement of any statute that is
intended to benefit or protect residents in a mobilehome park, unless
the court detennines that the plaintiff has established that there is a
probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal cornmittee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
I SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
2 following:
3 (a) Many local jurisdictions, in an effort to preserve and support
4 affordable housing options, and to protect the investments of all
5 mobilehome owners, have adopted mobilehome rent ordinances
6 to protect mobilehome owners from excessive rent increases.
7 Various state statutes also require local jurisdictions to review and
8 rule upon park owner applications to close or convert rental
9 mobilehome parks and to ensure that proper mitigation is provided
10 to all mobilehome owners who may be displaced from their
II mobilehome parks due to its closure or conversion.
12 (b) Under current law, cities and counties that successfully
13 defend their mobilehome rent ordinances, their administrative
14 decisions under their ordinances, and their decisions on park owner
15 closure and conversion applications must bear the costs of their
16 legal defense, even if they win. On the other hand, pursuant to
17 several current state statutes that this bill amends, they must pay
18 the other side's attomey's fees if they prevail under these statutes
19 that allow them to challenge mobilehome rent ordinances, local
20 administrative decisions under those ordinances, and local
21 administrative decisions on park owner applications to close and
22 convert rental mobilehome parks.
99
11-4
-3-
AB 579
1 (c) There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought by
2 mobilehome park owners challenging the adoption and retention
3 oflocal mobilehome ordinances, challenging local administrative
4 decisions under those ordinances, and challenging local decisions
5 on mobilehome park owner applications to close and convert rental
6 mobilehome parks. These lawsuits often have little likelihood of
7 success, involve excessive, unnecessary, and expensive discovery
8 procedures and, in many instances, cause local jurisdictions to
9 abandon the above protections of mobilehome owners because of
10 the great expense of defending against these lawsuits regardless
11 of the local jurisdictions chances of prevailing. These
12 circumstances have caused these lawsuits to have a chilling effect
13 on local jurisdictions' willingness and ability to continue to
14 preserve and support affordable housing in mobilehome parks,
15 and to protect the investments of all mobilehome owners, through
16 the adoption and retention of mobilehome rent ordinances, and
17 through the proper enforcement of both these ordinances and the
18 state statutes regarding the closure and conversion of rental
19 mobilehome parks.
20 (d) It is in the public interest to encourage cities to continue to
21 adopt and retain these local ordinances and continue to properly
22 enforce both these mobilehome park rent ordinances and state
23 statutes regulating the closure and conversion of rental mobilehome
24 parks. To this end, the provisions enacted by this measure shall be
25 construed broadly.
26 SEe. 2. Section 425.20 is added to the Code of Civil Procedure,
27 to read:
28 425.20. (a) (1) Thefollowing causes of action shall be subject
29 to a special motion to strike, unless the court detemunes that the
30 plaintiffhas established that there is a probability that the plaintiff
3 I will prevail on the claim:
32 (A) A cause of action brought by the owner of a mobilehome
33 park, as defined in Section 798.4 of the Civil Code, to challenge
34 the validity or application of an ordinance, rule, regulation, or
35 initiative measure adopted by any local governnlental entity that
36 regulates space rent, or is otherwise intended to benefit or protect
37 residents in the park.
38 (B) A cause of action that challenges a local government's
39 application or enforcement of any state statute that is intended to
40 benefit or protect residents in the mobilehome park.
99
11-5
AB 579
-4-
1 (2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the
2 pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts
3 upon which the liability or defense is based.
4 (3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a
5 probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that
6 determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible
7 in evidence at any later stage of the case, or in any subsequent
8 action, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise
9 applicable shall be affected by that determination in any later stage
10 of the case or in any subsequent proceeding.
11 (b) In any action subject to subdivision (a), a prevailing
12 defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover
13 his or her attorney's fees and costs. If the court finds that a special
14 motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause
15 unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable
16 attorney's fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to
17 Section 128.5.
18 (c) The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service
19 of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon
20 terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk
21 of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service
22 of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a
23 later hearing.
24 (d) All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon
25 the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The
26 stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry ofthe
27 order ruling on the motion. The court, on noticed motion and for
28 good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted
29 notwithstanding this subdivision.
30 (e) For purposes of this section, the following apply:
31 (1) "Complaint" includes a cross-complaint or a petition.
32 (2) "Plaintiff' includes a cross-complainant or a petitioner.
33 (3) "Defendant" includes a cross-defendant or a respondent.
34 (f) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall
35 be appealable under Section 904.1.
36 SEC. 3. Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
37 amended to read:
38 1021.5. (a) Upon motion, a court may award attorney.'
39 attorney's fees to a successful party against one or more opposing
40 parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an
99
11-6
-5-
AB 579
1 important right affecting the public interest if-fttJ (1) a significant
2 benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred
3 on the general public or a large class of persons,-ib1 (2) the
4 necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of
5 enforcement by one public entity against another public entity, are
6 such as to make the award appropriate, and ((;) 3Uch (3) the fees
7 should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if
8 any. With re3jlect to Except as provided in subdivision (c), in
9 actions involving public entities, this section applies to allowances
10 against, but not in favor of, public entities, and no claim sliall be
11 required to be filed therefor, unless one or more successful parties
12 and one or more opposing parties are public entities, in which case
13 no claim shall be required to be filed therefor under Part 3
14 (commencing with Section 900) of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the
15 Government Code.
16 Allorr.e)3'
17 (b) Attorney's fees awarded to a public entity pursuant to this
18 section shall not be increased or decreased by a multiplier based
19 upon extrinsic circumstances, as discussed in Serrano v. Priest, 20
20 Cal. 3d 25, 49.
21 (c) In an action brought by the owner of a mobilehome park,
22 as defined in Section 798.4 of the Civil Code, to challenge the
23 validity or application of an ordinance. nt/e, regulation, or
24 initiative measure adopted by any local governmental entity that
25 regulates space rent, or is otherwise intended to benefit or protect
26 residents in the park, or is an action that challenges a local
27 government's application or enforcement of any state statute that
28 is intended to benefit or protect residents in the park, if the local
29 governmental entity is determined to be the prevailing party in the
30 action, or in the defense against the action, meets the criteria of
31 subdivision (a), the court shall award attorney's fees to the local
32 governmental entity.
33 SEC. 4. Section 1036 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
34 amended to read:
35 1036. (a) In any inverse condenmatiori proceeding, the court
36 rendering judgment for the plaintiff by awarding compensation,
37 or the attorney representing the public entity who effects a
38 settlement of that proceeding, shall determine and award or allow
39 to the plaintiff, as a part of that judgment or settlement, a sum that
40 will, in the opirrion of the court, reimburse the plaintiff's reasonable
99
11-7
AB 579
-6-
1 costs, disbursements, and expenses, including reasonable attorney,
2 appraisal, and engineering fees, actually incurred because of that
3 proceeding in the trial court or in any appellate proceeding in which
4 the plaintiff prevails on any issue in that proceeding.
5 (b) In an inverse condemnation proceeding brought by the owner
6 of a rriobilehome park, as defined in Section 798.4 of the Civil
7 Code, to challenge the validity or application of an ordinance.
8 rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any local
9 governmental entity which regulates space rent, or is othenvise
10 intended to benefit or protect residents in the park, or is an inverse
11 condemnation proceeding that challenges a local government's
12 application or enforcement of any state statute that is intended to
13 benefit or protect residents in the park, if the local governmental
14 entity is determined to be the prevailing party and the action meets
15 the criteria of subdivision (a), the court shall award attorney 's
16 fees to the local governmental entity.
17 SEC. 5. Section 800 of the Government Code is amended to
18 read:
19 800. (a) In any civil action to appeal or review the award,
20 finding, or other determination of any administrative proceeding
21 under this code or under any other provision of state law, except
22 actions resulting from actions of the California Victim
23 Compensation and Government Claims Board, if it is shown that
24 the award, finding, or other determination of the proceeding was
25 the result of arbitrary or capricious action or conduct by a public
26 entity or an. officer thereof in his or her official capacity, the
27 complainant if he or she prevails in the civil action may collect
28 from the public entity reasonable attorney's fees, computed at one
29 hundred dollars ($100) per hour, but not to exceed seven thousand
30 five hundred dollars ($7,500), ifhe or she is personally obligated
31 to pay the fees in addition to any other relief granted or other costs
32 awarded.
33 (b) This section is ancillary only, and shall not be construed to
34 create a new cause of action.
35 (c) The refusal by a public entity or officer thereof to admit
36 liability pursuant to a contract of insurance shall not be considered
37 arbitrary or capricious action or conduct within the meaning of
38 this section.
39 (d) In any civil action brought by the owner of a mobilehome
40 park, as defined in Section 798.4 of the Civil Code, pursuant to
99
11-8
-7-
AB 579
1 this section, to challenge the validity or application of an
2 ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any
3 local governmental entity that regulates space rent, or is otherwise
4 intended to benefit or protect residents in the park, if the local
5 governmental entity is determined to be the prevailing party, the
6 court shall award attorney s fees and other litigation expenses to
7 the local governmental entity.
o
99
11-9
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 579
(MONNIN G) ALLOWING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
RECOVER ATTORNEYS' FEES AFTER SUCCESSFULLY
DEFENDING LOCAL MANUFACTURED HOME RENT
CONTROL ORDINANCES, AND RELATED
MANUFACTURED HOMEOWNER PROTECTIONS, AND
PROVIDING A SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS SUCH
LAWSUITS WITH NO PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS
WHEREAS, existing law permits a court to award attorneys' fees to a successful party in
an action that has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest,
but does not allow an award of attorneys' fees in favor of public entities, who successfully
defend against lawsuits challenging an important right affecting the public interest, except in
very limited circumstances; and
WHEREAS, existing law requires the court to determine and award to a successful
plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding certain costs, disbursements, expenses, and fees
as provided by law, but does not allow an award of attorneys' fees in favor of public entities who
successfully defend against such proceedings; and
WHEREAS, existing law permits a complainant to collect specified attorneys' fees in a
civil action to appeal or review an administrative proceeding where the proceeding was the result
of arbitrary or capricious actions or conduct by a public official or officer but does not allow in
award of attorneys' fees in favor of public entities, who successfully defend against such
litigation; and
WHEREAS. manufactured home park owners' have utilized the above statutes to
challenge local jurisdictions' adoption and enforcement of manufactured home rent control
ordinances, and other related manufactured homeowners protections, with the admitted goal of
forcing cash-strapped cities, who cannot afford the defense of such expensive litigation, into
abandoning their manufactured homeowner protections even when there is almost no likelihood
of the manufactured park owner prevailing in that litigation. Since local jurisdictions currently
cannot recover their attorneys' fees, under the above statutes, when they prevail against such
lawsuits, they must divert limited funds from other crucial local programs and services to the
defense of those lawsuits without the ability to recover those funds. These circumstances have
caused local jurisdictions to abandon their manufactured homeowner protections because they
cannot afford the costs of defending against multiple such lawsuits, even they have repeatedly
prevailed against such lawsuits and when there is a high probability that they cannot recover
their attorneys' fees when they prevail against these lawsuits; and
WHEREAS, AB 579 would permit the award of attorneys' fees and, in some cases, other
litigation expenses, under the above statutes, to a local government entity in an action brought by
the owner of a manufactured home park to challenge the validity or application of a local
ordinance, rule, regulation or initiative measure that regulates space rent of a manufactured home
11-10
park, is intended to benefit or protect residents in a manufactured home park or is an action that
challenges the local government's application or enforcement of a state statute that is intended to
benefit or protect residents in a manufactured home park, if the local government entity is
determined to be the prevailing party; and
WHEREAS, AB 579 would also subject a cause of action that challenges the validity or
application of a local ordinance, rule, regulation or initiative measure that regulates the space
rent of a manufactured home park, is intended to benefit or protect residents in a manufactured
home park or is an action that challenges a local government's application or enforcement of any
state statute that is intended to benefit or protect residents in a manufactured home park, to a
special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is
a probability that the plaintiff will reveal in the cause of action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, supports AB 579 and requests that all members of the State Legislature approve and pass
it, and that the Governor of the State of California sign it into law, as soon as possible so as to
grant local jurisdictions with manufactured home rent stabilization ordinances, or who are
required to enforce state statutes protecting manufactured homeowners, a "level playing field" in
the event of litigation, filed by manufactured park owners, challenging the local jurisdictions'
enforcement of such laws in the courts of California and to discourage manufactured park home
owners from filing and pursuing such litigation that has the purpose of forcing local jurisdictions
to abandon the protection of manufactured homeowners because they cannot afford to defend
against such lawsuits rather then the manufactured park owners having a probability of
prevailing in those lawsuits.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
~~~
Glen R. Googins, City Attorney
~~.
len R. Googms, CIty Attorney
11-11